raise awareness particularly to a younger generation to know about his work. >> jason riley with his book "maverick" tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on q&a. can also listen to q&a as a podcast where you get your podcasts. >> coming up this week on the c-span networks, homeland security secretary a la hunter mayorkas, fbi director christopher wray, and national counterterrorism director christine opposite, appear before congress on threats to the homeland 20 years after 9/11. testifying before the senate homeland security tuesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern, and the house homeland security on wednesday at 9:00 i am eastern. later on wednesday at 230 p.m. eastern, federal reserve chairman jerome powell holds a press conference. watch this week on the c-span

networks are listed on the c-span radio app. also, head over to see spend c-span for scheduling. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. host: it is the washington journal for september 19, and recent remarks about the economy. president biden wants again made the case for tax increases and the corporations, as well as individuals who make over $400,000 a year. the biden administration plans to use the revenue to pay for infrastructure and social programs. you are welcome to share your opinion on this proposal. here is how you can let us know what you think. if you support it, you can call us and tell us why at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001

the number to call. happy you are not sure. you can call us at (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. you can also post at facebook. part of this proposal from the white house includes various categories, as far as who would be affected. according to politico, that would raise the corporate tax to 26.5% on businesses with incomes over $5 million. 39.6 tax rate for individuals making over $400,000. it would also include a 3% tax on individuals making above $5 million, and would also increase top capital gains rate to 28.8%. these are some of the proposals being debated on capitol hill. subject to a vote with those --

if the proposals went forward, revenue going to the president's plan for infrastructure and the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. when it goes to who makes this kind of money, cnb -- cnbc posted something. it says that by national measures those making that figure belong to a rare fight group. they represent the top one point 8% of taxpayers, earning about 25% of the nation's income. the 400,000 dollars cut off is also higher than the 200 $50,000 threshold proposed by barack obama in 2008 and he saw to raise taxes on the wealthy. also saying that president biden's plan is largely a marginal tax increase. those making slightly more than 400,000 dollars will see small increases, while the bulk of the $4 trillion from mr. biden's plan would come from

super-earners making more than $1 million. or there in that story if you want to read who makes that kind of money. it was thursday that the president was making remarks about the economy, again talked about his plans for tax increases. he was a portion of that from thursday. [video clip] pres. biden: they play by a different set of rules, and they are often not employees themselves, so the irs cannot see what they make. and cannot tell if they are cheating. that is how the top 1% it away with paying virtually nothing. it is estimated that that number is about 160 billion dollars, collectively owed each year that does not get paid. my plan would help solve that. for example, it would give the irs the resources it needs to keep up with lawyers and accountants of the super

wealthy. it would ask for two pieces of information from these folks. the amounts that come into their bank accounts, and what amounts go out of their bank accounts. so that the wealthy can no longer hide what they are making , and they can finally begin to pay their fair share of what they owe. that is not about raising their taxes, it is about the wealthy finally getting to pay with ao. what the existing tax code calls for. just like hard-working americans do all over this country, every tax day. like i said a few minutes ago, the 55 most profitable corporations in america paid zero in federal income taxes. on what amounted to $40 billion in profit. not a penny. that is not right.

my economic plan would change that. not punish anybody, just make them pay their fair share. host: catherine wrote in a recent piece for the paper about the efforts of democrats to make these proposals happen. she writes that, president biden opposed raising the capital gains rate so wealth is treated the same as income from work. the house bill is considerably weaker. instead of raising the rate a few percentage points, mr. biden proposed closing one of the most valuable tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy, a provision called "stepped up basis." through a death loophole a person can bequeath that stock to his heirs without ever paying taxes on how much that stock rose during the owner's life. this is a boon to anyone with a dynastic wealth, since it means their wealth is going to escape

capital gains taxes. if you want to more -- if you want to read more, catherine brunel has that. the tax foundation talking about corporations and what they pay. the white house -- has perpetuated a narrative that big corporations or avoiding taxes by shifting profits overseas. a recent analysis by marty sullivan found that large tech firms moved 40 billion dollars of worldwide profits to the united states in 2020, delaying the rhetoric. the publicly traded multinationals overall have steadily increased domestic share of their worldwide profits from 48% in 2017 to 56% in 2020. also adding that tax fairness is this -- is defined differently by almost every economist. he goes on saying there are easy steps that congress could take, if you want to read about those.

you can do so at the website. with that in mind, these proposals to raise taxes, if you support that idea, (202) 748-8000. maybe you oppose that idea. follow us at (202) 748-8001. perhaps you fall in the not sure category. it was a call at (202) 748-8003. use that number to text us and you can post on facebook and twitter too. one of the people watching a speech on thursday was trump's former economic advisor, larry kudlow. he was on fox news and had this response to the president's remarks. [video clip] >> it is a terrible factual misstatement. it just goes beyond cognitive dissonance, right? respect the office of the presidency, so i'm not going to tell you the label i would like depend on this, i would just say

cognitive dissonance. first of all, the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes. the bottom 50% or more don't pay income taxes, ok? he doesn't talk about that. >> it was even bigger in 2020. >> the spending is going to be, if you do the numbers right, the spending will be roughly 5.5 trillion dollars, plus $1 trillion for the so-called infrastructure bill. nobody in their right mind believes that a strong economy with excessive inflation requires about $6 trillion of new federal spending. republican, democrat, supply-side or keynesian, nobody believes that. host: larry kudlow was on fox news last night. david is from ohio. supports this proposal. go ahead. caller: absolutely. we are talking about less than 2% of the american people that

make the money biden is talking about taxing. when you look at it from a practical standpoint, ok, you can use that money to create jobs for much-needed projects. our infrastructure. we can create good paying jobs. when the working class has money, what happens? the economy thrives. you get people buying cars, remodeling their homes, it is definitely -- the money has velocity. these people that are hoarding wealth, some gets invested, but a lot of it gets held in the money does not have the same velocity. when the working class as jobs it is better for everybody. host: do you think these tax increases will cover with the president is proposing? caller: i haven't looked at -- yes. i have heard that it will, but i can't say that i scrutinized all of the numbers but whatever the

taxes will bring in, that is what we will have available to spend. also if you have been paying attention to what is happening with the environment, people have to get their heads out of the sand. the former president denied global warming even existed. host: we will leave it there, only to keep the context of the conversation. this is ed. go ahead. caller: i think garman is a shared enterprise. we all should contribute to it. i think last year 35% or so of people paid income tax. it is kind of a minority. for the 98% to gang up on the 2%, i think it is a shared responsibility. host: you were calling in on the oppose line. is that the case? caller: yes.

he is raising taxes against just 2% of the people. i think there is working initiatives. the whole country should pay for it. everybody who owns income. host: do you think those in the higher tax brackets have done that? caller: how do you define fair? i think the 1%, i believe they pay 40% of the income tax as it is. is it fair that one third of the people pay any taxes, where 100% of the people benefit from that? it is just an issue of fairness in terms of how you look at fairness. host: ok. it's go to tina. tina is in pittsburgh, pennsylvania on our support line. host: yes -- caller: yes, good morning. i believe everybody should pay taxes.

with the rich, they make trillions over this pandemic and i find that they always say, well, if you cut our taxes we will give higher wages, it turns out they never do give higher wages. they put it in their stocks, they are buying up houses, they buy up everything. do you find it fair when you think about it? the people that are poor and middle class that are trying to turn around and they are paying their taxes and they don't have to? i really hope that goes through. i think the corporations and wealthy should definitely pay their share. host: do you generally believe the wealthy do not pay their share of taxes? caller: absolutely not. because think about it. when they cut the taxes that cost us a big deficit. that was passed on the trump era, when he was president. also think about all of the money they made over the pandemic. they're the ones who got quite

wealthy. it was the middle class and poor was not doing good. the middle class was losing their businesses and everything. now look at the housing market. they are buying up all of the houses, a lot of them. then they turn around and flip them. this is not right. everyday families cannot even afford at -- afford a house. if we get them to pay their share, that money can be used. host: that is tina in pittsburgh. if you go to the website, the conversation has a look at some of the historical concepts of those who pay taxes. the headline there has that dress with alexandria ocasio-cortez, the piece goes on to say in 1950 when looking at federal state and local taxes, the top 1% of earners paid almost 70% of income in taxes, in post-war decades the main

source of income for the rich were subject to an effective corporate tax rate of 50%. the rich were subject to high tax rates on wages, dividends, and income from partnerships. that is the top .1%, i should stay -- i should say. the upshot is that for most income levels the u.s. tax system and ours ambles a flat tax becomes regressive at the very top end. meaning the superrich pay proportionately less. today virtually all income groups pay roughly 28% of their income in taxes, except for the 400 richest americans. each own more than $2 billion in wealth today and pay around 25% in taxes. again, the conversation website if you want to see more analysis about that dress. it was representative of casio cortez wearing that dress that said "tax the rich," sending out

a tweet with her in that dress. that garnered a response right and far, but a republican on capitol hill saying, he where a tax the rich dress to a $30,000 per ticket gala, you are probably one of them. again, that dress driving the conversation when it comes to taxation. we are asking you what you think about supporting or opposing the raising of those taxes. from lawrenceville, georgia, this is kathy. go ahead. caller: i do oppose it, because i think it is unfair. congress and the president were that concerned with how much tax money corporations and millionaires and billionaires are paying, then change the tax code and cut out the loophole and everything that they don't want to do, because a lot of that is in their best interest. host: when you say it is unfair,

aside from changing the tax code, what do you think about the arguments that some have made this morning about those wealthy who do not pay taxes -- at least the perception they do not pay their taxes? caller: the reason they don't pay is because they can afford good accountants. if i can afford a good accountant -- i'm lower middle class -- i would have an accountant that saved me every penny that is legal. if congress is that concerned in the president is, then reassess the tax laws. host: this is barbara in farmington, connecticut on our support line. hello. caller: hello. i have one quick comment. i do not know why they do not tax the catholic churches. they have a lot of money, they are the richest organization, they are always begging for money from their parishioners, the parishioners are paying taxes. why did they not pay tax? host: corporations and the

wealthy, do you think they should be taxed more? caller: corporate and wealthy? host: do you think they should be taxed more? caller: definitely. in addition to them, i'm saying. host: why do you think that is a case? why do you think that is needed? caller: because it has so much money and we need money, so why did they not get taxed? host: that is barbara in connecticut, making her thoughts known this money. some of you posted on facebook for the show started this morning. this is beth saying, when it comes to that taxation, of course the middle class will pitch a hissy fit, and it does not even impact them. they will get better everything -- infrastructure, childcare, climate protection. mike from facebook -- i'm probably saying your name wrong, i apologize. yeah, 50% tax across the board.

from david in orlando saying, any do not pay because they use loopholes and hide their wealth. cassie says, pay the fair share, please. also from our twitter feed, if you are saying rich people do not want to pay any taxes. the wealthy will fight paying taxes to the death. again, twitter is available @ cspanwj. let's hear from mike in california. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have been a cpa for a little over 40 years, and there is something i always say to people. this is more applicable than i have ever seen, and that is and they say that oh, were only going after people that make only $400,000 a year that is not true.

a lot of times they leave out people, and i believe that eventually millions of people fall in the category, regular people, middle-class people that may be owned one thing. perhaps an apartment complex that they held for many years, even decades. it is the equivalent of their nest egg. they do not have a multimillion dollar pension, as do many government workers. and i have seen people in their 80's wiped out financially from selling the one thing. nobody finds that amusing when i say to them, you are a fat cat for a day. you are the 1%. they never, ever carve out something for these regular people. many years ago we used to have something called income

averaging. i think they threw that out in 1984 or 1985. it was prior to the 1986 tax act. that did allow for people that had a flukey year. i have heard people that understand what i'm talking about say, need to bring that back, but it is just horrible what happens to these people and there is never an exception for that. host: as a cpa, if these proposals go through, typically are there ways to work around them? caller: not for middle-class people. host: i mean for those who are wealthier? caller: the answer to that is yes and no. you can mitigate that, but not work around. at least not in my world, not in

my league. i do not know about these multinational tax lawyers and accountants, but there is some mitigation, but no, there is no workaround. the issue is the usually draft things like this so tightly because they are so driven to punish the perceived injustices. they are shooting for social justice and never commonsense and never what is good for the country as a whole. host: we will leave it there, mike. mike, former cpa giving his perspective from georgia. we set up a line for those who may not be sure about these proposals. gar, go ahead. caller: it is not rocket science. that last caller made it rocket science. k street.

we are talking about lobbyists. 400 lobbyists per congressperson. do you think is paying the congressman? what is that old word in d.c.? show me the money? host: tell us why you are not sure about these proposals. caller: because they are not going to do it. neither party is going to raise the taxes on the rich, because they are getting paid. a lot of times it is not rocket science. until we get the lobbyists out of there, the rich and going to pay no taxes. host: there was a poll taken among those who are wealthy about these proposals from the. just to read a little bit, saying, if the biden administration gets their way, millions there -- millionaires appear to be ok with that. nearly half of individuals worth

$1 million or more support a wealth tax on people worth $10 million or more. almost half, 40 8%, support increasing the capital gains tax. the survey was conducted in april and may, saying while the president has not proposed a wealth tax per se, his requested budget includes tax hikes on well-heeled individuals that are intended to help fund the american families planned. -- families plan. providing federal paid family leave and expanding the tax credits, amongst other initiatives. again, your thoughts on this idea of raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy. a line for use that support, oppose it, and perhaps are not sure. lawrenceville, new jersey. you are next up. caller: good morning, pedro. i definitely support. hello.

host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i support raising taxes on corporations and wealthy americans. more on corporations. their track record here for paying their fair share is just abysmal. you know, i think that common sense people, particularly people who are not superrich and are not part of a corporation -- i mean, corporations have a right to make money, that they are just oblivious when it comes to paying taxes. and they are very, very, very good and adept at hiding their money. it actually goes against -- it is so un-american, you know? that is just my expression i am using. that you can have a business, a thriving, lucrative business and you just think you are not supposed to pay your taxes. corporations are all hooked up. there was a guy before me who

said, you know, they have a truckload of attorneys which they pay very well, they are all hooked up with lobbyists, all to protect their interests. well, poor people and lower middle-class people and middle-class people need somebody to protect their interest. the idea that somebody who is a truck driver pays more money than a man who makes millions and millions of dollars, that is criminal. host: that is marvin in lawrenceville, new jersey. if you go to the website of pro-public -- of pro-public, they look at what the wealthy pay in taxes, what they do to mitigate that. you can find jesse eisenberg's interview with us, but when it comes to warren buffett, his wealth growth was 23.4 billion

dollars. his reported income was $23.5 million. he paid tax -- 125 million dollars. he paid taxes of $23.7 million. jeff bezos, 4 billion-plus in total income. taxes paid, 970 $3 million. taking the tax rate .9%. michael bloomberg, 22.5 billion dollars in wealth growth, $10 billion reported. 29 point $2 million paid. taking that into account, his tax rate 1.3 percent. elon musk, 13.9 billion dollars of growth. $1.5 billion of reported income, $45 million of taxes paid. then 3.27% of tax rate. you can find that at the pro publica site.

if you want to go to our website, c-span.org, you can do that. let's hear from keith in florida. hi. caller: hello, pedro. my opinion is, what is going to happen is he is going to hit us out here that depend on the stock market towards our retirements. and he is going to tax that even more. so that affects us down on the bottom rung of the ladder, and our fireman's, and we are not wealthy. and that is not right. we are retired. he saved all of our lives and we are invested in the stock market. as far as the higher echelon, yeah, tax them, ok, but then there go the jobs. trump was trying to be -- to bring the jobs back here, now

biden is going to push them back overseas. that is my opinion. host: this is alvin on our oppose line. hello. caller: good morning, sir. i would like to say it is a too -- two part situation. the first is the false narrative of, make the rich their fair share. if you ever ask a rich person what their fair share is, they will tell you the tax code them it is zero. so it is a really easy problem to fix. you take all of the loopholes out of the tax code, you eliminate all charitable deductions and not for profits until the debt is paid. problem solved. host: that is alvin giving his opinion. you can do the same. if you oppose it, you can call (202) 748-8001. if you support these rates of increase, (202) 748-8000 in number to call.

then maybe you are not sure. (202) 748-8002. taking a look at these proposals, they say with the proliferation of dynamic restaurants -- of dynamic estimates, the tax-writing committees have not put enough -- have not put out enough details. the budget serves as a proxy for where they are likely to go. they found those taxes would reduce the size of the economy by 1.3% over time, reduce wages by 1%, and eliminate 233,000 jobs. the estimate of the entire 2022 budget found similar results as the tax foundation. they estimate the economy would be 1.1 percent smaller in 2051, largely because higher taxes would discourage savings and investment.

moody's analytics taking a more favorable view. they find the economy will be 2% larger in 2030 one because of the reconciliation, though that largely comes from the extra spending. there is more there, a lot more detail at the u.s. chamber site. the next half hour we book continue on and you can call us. you can post on facebook, twitter. text us if you wish. michael from facebook saying, without a doubt we should go back to the corporate tax structures of the 1950's and 1960's. we need to put an end to all of this trickle-down economics. also from facebook saying, raising taxes are a politician's way of making themselves look good without actually effectively increasing in national sales tax. it sounds good to say they are not raising taxes on individuals, demanding corporations pay their fair share. the reality is these businesses only increase the prices of the goods consumers buy.

the only difference is the retailer is not the one collecting the tax, the producer is. bill is up next in huntersville, north carolina. he is saying he is not sure. good morning. caller: good morning, good morning. host: tell us why you are not sure. caller: i'm not sure because government is not sure. the real problem is, give them more money they are going to waste more money. that is what they do. our national debt is $28 trillion and our children or somebody's going to have to pay for it down the line. the way i look at it, the real problem is the government, they waste more money, they spend too much, and that is the way i look at it. host: and if that was the opposite then? if the government handled money well you would be for this proposal? caller: about what? host: if the government spent

the money wisely would you be more live of the proposals from caller: caller: the biden administration? -- caller: not biden's. if they did things right they would not have to raise taxes. there is enough money there, but they waste it. host: lloyd is next, sacramento, california. caller: how are you, sir? host: fine, thank you. caller: i do support taxing the wealthy. maybe just to get rid of the loopholes, then they might start paying what they owe. host: why do you think loopholes are the problem? caller: because i pay taxes and i do not have loopholes i can claim. the rich have all of the good accountants and they know the taxes better than normal people do, so they say get rid of the loopholes.

host: lloyd in sacramento calling us early in the morning. this is ray from delaware. he says he is not sure. hello. caller: good morning. i look at it this way, ok? you want to raise the tax on the rich because they are using loopholes. now where did loopholes come from? they came from congress. the only way you're going to straighten out this mess is, you've got to put term limits in. because they are making the rules for the rich and sane, you know what? were going to raise the taxes on the rich. the rich are going to raise their prices, so who is going to be paying the money? it is going to be the middle class and the poor, because all they are going to do is pass the buck. it ends up, the middle class and poor are the ones paying the taxes. host: that is ray. next is oklahoma city, oklahoma

on our support line. otis, hello. caller: how are you doing? i definitely support the rich paying their fair amount of taxes. in addition to that, what is so crazy about it is how they squandered trillions of dollars for 20 years on a war over there in afghanistan, but they have issues with helping the average person now. they have no credibility. they are playing games with people's lives, with all of this guessing whether the rich pay more -- absolutely the rich should pay more. they even understand that. in order to do that we have to raise taxes on them. like i say, i agree we are going back to the -- i think it is 1948, i believe. taxes on the rich was about 90%, wasn't it? if i'm correct? host: i'm not sure.

what makes you think it would work this time around? what makes you think there is a benefit to raising taxes? caller: here is what it do. it would take the pressure off of people, the average working poor that need a opportunity to at least make a decent, respectable living. no one said we want to live like we have 10 different rooms and 50 cars, but i know if a person is working 40 hours a week he should at least have a respectable car, a modest home, and paying his bills. the thing about the working poor that people do not understand is that we do not have a opportunity to do anything. if we have a car, fortunate enough to have a car, and

something happens to it you cannot afford to fix it. then when you are working, most jobs now are through temp agencies. host: that is otis in oklahoma city, giving some perspective on why he supports the raising of taxes on corporations, those who are wealthy. you can do the same on the line -- same online. you can text us too. when it comes to specific corporate tax proposals from the democrats, his nieces with revenue above $5 million, they would pay 26.5%. revenues between 400,000 dollars and $5 million would stay -- would see that rate stay at 21%. businesses with revenue less than $400,000 would see a rate cut to 18%. the ways and means committee taking a look at the budget, working on a text for that. it was richard neal of the ways and means committee, saying it

was time for corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share, as he called her. he was part of his argument from a recent hearing. [video clip] >> we celebrate success in this great nation we all love, but we can also ask the biggest companies and the ultra-wealthy to contribute more. that is why our proposal asks those in this nation who are doing extremely well to pay a bit more to support the services and infrastructure on which our society, and often their business and investments, or lie. while the increases we propose today will go a long way in responsibly playing -- responsibly paying for our investments, the rates will still remain lower than they were in the 2017 tax law. despite the rhetoric, we have carefully made sure to protect middle-class americans and small businesses from experiencing any tax increases.

we can argue and discuss the issues of greater wealth concentration in america, as to how it happened, what we cannot deny is it did happen. the arguments over worker skills , the arguments over globalization, the arguments over the decline of unionism in america and the advances of technology have all contributed to that greater concentration of wealth. we take steps today to help provide broader opportunity for the american family. the proposals we consider in these days are about expanding those opportunities, increasing equity, and demonstrating our commitment to fairness. host: some other comments about these proposals off of twitter. you heard from the press and talking about it. it was senator sanders, one of the drivers of the legislation when it comes to taxation saying, we can no longer tolerate a rigged tax system that allows the top 1% to avoid

$163 billion in taxes they owe. we demand the 1% pay its fair share and we will use that revenue to invest in working families. from senator elizabeth warren, adding, i agree with ron wyden. we need to pass a bill that ensures that billionaires and corporations are paying their fair share. a wealth tax and my real corporate profits tax are to bang ways to get that done. representative cossey or cortez saying, after a year -- it goes on from there as far as her statements, as far as what she said about taxation. those are democrats primarily on this. we will hear from republicans in a little bit. here in pennsylvania. the head. -- harry in pennsylvania.

go ahead. caller: about the tax rate people pay, if you look at that again, if you have an increase in the value of your stock, you don't pay anything on that because you the stock go down. your tax rate on that presentation was showing that the tax rate to gain on the stock, if you look at their actual income your numbers are wrong. host: again, the analysis is other people's analysis, but go ahead. caller: they are counting gains on stocks and holdings that are unrealized. you have to sell the stock to get that money. those rates are inflammatory lay

low -- inflammatory low. the second thing is that i believe raising corporate taxes in america, and if you look in ireland who deliberately lowered their tax rate, that drove jobs into ireland. caused the celtic tiger. i think we ought to move jobs in, so i would pose raising taxes. -- i would oppose raising taxes. host: let's hear from lester in california. caller: i oppose raising any more taxes, because what this country has is a spending problem, and that needs to get under control. this ridiculous 3.5 trillion dollars budget is just off the charts. host: why is it not a taxation

problem? caller: excuse me? host: why is it not a taxation problem? caller: because we have had revenues from taxes for the last -- i don't know -- so many years. the government needs to spend that money in a way that they don't require any more taxes from anybody. host: do you think that those who are wealthy pay what they should be caller: caller: paying in taxes? -- caller: i don't know for sure about that myself. i think that needs to be dealt in, because it is only right. i can agree with that, but in general taxing is just ridiculous now and they should, you know, learn how to spend that money. make whatever rules need to be made or enforced should be -- you know, should be done to prevent any huge amounts of tax

increases, because we are already at record revenues from taxes. host: let's hear from jim in fort lauderdale, florida. hello. caller: hello. i am not sure, because there is pretty good arguments for both sides of this thing. i agree with the statistics you showed about the billionaires. it is pretty ugly. i think it is pretty ugly. some of them actually say themselves it is ugly. so, i think these billionaires, as ugly as it may look, they are a byproduct of our capitalist system. they are not the system. they are a byproduct. we have the greatest system in the world for creating wealth, and here's how it works. we have this thing called equity , and companies can be created out of nothing in this country.

unlike any other country in the world. let me give you a few examples of those companies. microsoft was created out of having -- out of nothing. cisco was created out of nothing. intel was created out of nothing, because investors risk their money and gave it to people who did not have to pay that money back. they took that money and made the greatest companies the world has ever known. host: ok, that is jim in florida. let's hear from joseph, kalamazoo, michigan, who supports this proposal. let me push the button first, i apologize. hello. caller: yes. i agree we should raise taxes on the rich. people don't understand out there. they keep talking about raising the prices on the products. the price has already been

raised. every year they raise prices on poor people and the middle class, on the products, everything they sell might as well go ahead and raise the taxes, because if you don't they are going to raise prices anyway. talking about they will leave the state? if they leave the country, everything you sell here in the united states you pay more for. therefore if they go out of the country, cut their products off. it will pay. i guarantee. companies will stay here, because you make more money in the united states. and for that guy talking about prices and not only prices going up, but we have the rich making most of this money and operations, when you start making billions then it is time to start raising prices on those billionaires. host: that is joseph in michigan. one of the people commenting on

the democrats' plan was a top republican on the ways and means committee that you saw from that recent mark hearing. it was kevin brady, criticizing the proposals not only on the tax side, it also the spending side. [video clip] >> prices are growing faster than paychecks every month. how does it make sense that he found another 3.5 trillion dollars that will drive prices up higher and last longer? when businesses are fighting to recover from the covid pandemic, how well raising taxes help them get back on their feet? after the u.s. leapfrogged the most competitive economy in the world following republican tax reform, what are we thinking? saddling american businesses with higher tax rates than communist china and most of the world? especially when it guarantees u.s. jobs, research, manufacturing investment are driven overseas. you remember. it happened all the time during

the obama/biden white house. who gets hurt most? workers and communities pay the price when businesses are forced to send money to washington to be wasted, rather than invested in their workers. how does it make any sense to take more of what small businesses work so hard to earn, leaving them even less to spend on growing their business and hiring more? why in heaven's name are democrats exposing even more family-owned farms and businesses to the death tax? forcing them to sell their land or business to pay the irs rather than hand down their lifetime of work the next generation? this hurts multigenerational farms and women and minority-owned businesses. we look more like foreign countries favoring foreign companies and workers over american ones. no mistake, the tax bill raises taxes on the middle class. just ask the liberal tax policy

center that states nearly three quarters of workers will see higher taxes starting next year, and up to 90% in the future. host: if you want to see that hearing, you can find it at our website. a related story to keep an eye on, the washington post this morning with the headline, senate republicans say they will vote to allow a debt default, leaving democrats searching for a plan to avert an economic crisis. mitch mcconnell's rival -- why the kentucky republican is unfazed whenever he digs in on a political strategy. people in kentucky know he cannot be shamed into changing. that was representative john yarmuth. that was january 2020, and the context focused on how speaker pelosi's decision to hold articles of impeachment.

two years later democrats have set up a similar strategy that will force republicans to accept their fair share of the national debt. if this fails the federal government could run out of funding authority and enter another shutdown. and create a debt crisis that could rattle financial markets. senate republicans will not vote to increase the treasury's authority to keep borrowing, which is the same to -- which is the same as voting to allow a default. , has created a new rule out of whole cloth to justify his actions. let's hear from san angelo, texas. cliff, go ahead. caller: i found an interesting amenity go -- a minute ago when you were asking one of the callers about paying for -- the corporations or the wealthy paying more you almost said, don't you think they ought to

pay their fair share? but you stop yourself, i could tell. host: i wasn't going to say that at all, but go ahead. caller: that's fine, i apologize. that phrase, whether anyone knows it or not -- and i think there is a lot of people out there who have heard that phrase -- are very disgusted with it. it is a sick phrase. president biden the other day must have used it five times. nobody on the left can define what fair share actually is. if i asked people on the left, tell me what the figure is, really what it means is more. give me a minute here. let's identify what the rich pay. the top 1%, the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes. the top 1%.

the top 5% pay 71% of all taxes. the top 25% pay 87% of all taxes. and here's the kicker. the bottom 50% pay zero taxes. when you want to give a tax break and take it from the rich and give it to the middle class or the poor or however you want to say it, you are not giving them a tax break. you are giving them more of the money that the ones who are higher earners are making. host: that is cliff. let's hear from deborah, pennsylvania, on our support line. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. wow. mcconnell and the last caller, listen up, average americans. for the last 40 years at least billionaires and millionaires

have had their hands in our government for years. the tax code laws were changed. they make their money on investments. it is not taxed. they limited voting. the trickle-down economics was mostly float to the top. we kept, people. stop getting your information from facebook. host: as far as why you support the raising of these taxes, why is that? caller: because the wealthy people do not pay taxes. it is the working people that pay taxes. they make their money on investments. recently six u.s. treasury secretaries said there was, like, billions in unpaid taxes. and biden wanted to increase

funding for irs to collect some of those taxes. republicans fought tooth and nail against that, so that is out. i mean, wake up, people. host: it used to be in this country the rich were taxed enough to fund the military. now the middle class is asked to foot the whole bill, pay more tax, go into debt for everything. if viewer offer twitter saying, perhaps the tax code should be simplified. a flat rate for all except for those who are not earning enough to make a decent living. corporate taxes will eventually be paid by customers through higher prices. not sure how to solve that problem. when it comes to efforts on capitol hill on taxation and the 3.5 trillion dollars budget bill, the new york times highlights that centrist and progressive democrats have clashed over the size of the spending and legislation. the scale and details of the

taxes, prescription drug pricing, tax credits for the poor, the aggressiveness of credits to speed the energy sector, and much more. even items that are not priorities for mr. biden have open rifts. on friday one of the parties most outspoken progressives took aim at a crucial priority of several top democrats, including chuck schumer, saying she would resist attempts to repeal a cap on deductions for state and local property taxes that would aid high earners. scranton, pennsylvania. your next. caller: i support it, because first of all you have to eliminate these tax loopholes, which is probably not going to happen because of all of the rich politicians. they are all making money and avoiding taxes. as far as individual wealthy

people, their taxes should be raised because their quality of life will not change at all if they pay a little bit more. it is just greed. the corporations, i feel, the republicans say jobs will go away. it rewards corporations if they say, ok, we are going to hire five thousand people. ok, you get a lower tax rate. they deserve it. but can we just do that? host: that is about all i have. connie is bama in -- connie is in ohio. caller: maybe download that a little bit. you know, we've got people in congress that owes taxes. aoc. congress is getting rich, we are getting poorer. i oppose it. it is socialist. we don't need it.

our country is in enough heard and pain. it needs to end. get the place in order on capitol hill. $2.6 trillion, just social security. pay it. that is all i've got to say. host: that is connie. let's hear from alicia in hardy, virginia, on our support line. caller: hi there. we definitely have to think about proportions here, because it is not fair for us lower middle class, poor people to pay so much in taxes. we really have to look at proportions with corporations and businesses. and i do have a solution to the tax problem. if every able-bodied person works for the government two weeks out of the year, and if you are an electrician, you work for the government for two weeks

as an electrician. and you don't have to pay any taxes. everyone who works for the government two weeks out of the year pays no taxes. how about starting with that? host: what makes you think it would work? caller: i have run it through my head and several people, and it can be developed. it is an idea, and it can be developed. host: what makes you think it would work? caller: if every able-bodied person pays 10% of their salary, that is fine. but if you are working for the government two weeks out of the year, then you have to pay no taxes because you were doing the work you would normally pay for. you are paying for people to fix your roads and bridges, but if you are the one out there fixing the road and fixing the bridges, why should you pay for it? host: let's hear from michael on

our oppose line. hello. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think that chart you showed earlier about how much these rich people pay, buffet, bezos, bloomberg, and -- whoever. i'm no fan of these guys, but buffet pays $125 million, bezos four hundred $27 billion. host: that was the pro publica study. caller: they pay a lot of taxes. the 1% pay 40% of the taxes, and the 5% pay 70% of the taxes. that is from government studies. that is from government whatever. and that is true. and how much of a percentage do you want them to pay? when you ask that woman who was opposed to this that is

supporting raising the taxes, how much does she pay in taxes? does she pay $1 million? a lot of people do not pay any taxes at all. and that is correct. it is not fair for people to demonize the rich all of the time. one last point is that the people that -- when trump lowered the tax rate, so many people not jobs. unemployment was lowered. and that is where people get money. that is how people get money, and the rich are going to have to do that. host: richard in nashville, tennessee. hello. caller: good morning. pedro, i work for a grocery store. i will not get into the details, but they are a major player. they make $1.9 billion in profit last year. it is common knowledge because it is a public company. normally i would not want

anybody to be taxed, but with the rich when you $1.79 billion in total profit, that is after you have paid everybody. i understand you have to reinvest, but when you still pay your people minimum wage or a little better and hold back on how many people you hire, and most big companies will say, you will get 150 hours this week, so then the 40 hour week person gets knocked down, or a part-time person. 18 hours minimum a week in my situation, $10 an hour, and they get less hours. i agree the big corporations need to be taxed heavy. do you know why?

it it is a shell game. host: we will change gears a little bit and talk about issues of security. a recent deal signed by the u.s., u.k. and australia, what it means for security and possibly china. john schaus joining us for that next. later, we hear from brandeis university's michael willrich, author of a book on the history of the smallpox epidemic in the u.s. on the history of vaccine mandates. all that coming up on washington journal. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] >> coming up this week on c-span, homeland security secretary mayorkas, fbi director

christopher wray appear before congress on threats to the homeland. c-span3 will have live testimony on tuesday. the house homeland security committee on wednesday at 9:00 a.m. eastern. and federal reserve chair jerome powell holds a press conference this week. watch on c-span or listen on the radio have. head over to c-span.org for information or to stream video live, on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪